In November 1774, Robert Maclintock Jr. freighted the brigantine Rainbow to carry goods to Virginia and return a cargo of wheat. His father and David Smith joined in the adventure, and the three wrote Virginia merchants Charles Duncan and John Brown, empowering them to draw on Maclintock jr. for the price. According to the defenders of this action, Smith and Maclintock Sr., in the summer of 1775, when the Rainbow returned to Clyde with the cargo of wheat, Maclintock jJr. informed his co-adventurers that the cargo was not for them, but solely for himself. Two years later he stopped paying his bills and left the country, and the defenders received a demand from Charles Duncan for the unpaid value of the Rainbow's cargo. Duncan, the pursuer of this action, argued that as co-adventurers the defenders were liable for the price of the cargo, and that the bill had been drawn solely on Maclintock jr.'s account out of secrecy: Maclintock Sr. was a principal in the Merchant Bank, and it was convenient for him that his name did not appear on the bill. Duncan further accused the defenders of obliterating evidence of a copartnership contained in documents possessed by Betty Maclintock, the aunt of Maclintock Jr. The defenders argued, on the other hand, that they were not co-partners with the younger Maclintock, and were therefore not liable for his debts. The bailies of Glasgow, who first heard the case, repelled the defense, and Lord Braxfield refused the defenders' bill of advocation. They then petitioned the Court to compel Lord Braxfield to pass the bill.
Documents in this case (2)
- Maclintock — Petition, 29 Jul 1778July 29, 1778 petition of Robert Maclintock, senior and David Smith arguing that they should not be held liable for payments owed by Maclintock junior.
- Robert Maclintock senior and David Smith v. Charles Duncan — Answers, 4 Aug 1778August 4, 1778 answers by Duncan to Maclintock and Smith's petition, arguing that the two were indeed in a copartnery with Maclintock, junior.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Charles Duncan — Pursuer
- Robert Maclintock Sr. — Defender
- David Smith — Defender
- David Russell — Trustee/Tutor/Representative for Pursuer
- Thomas Crawfurd — Trustee/Tutor/Representative for Pursuer
- Alexander Wight — Advocate for Pursuer
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Advocate for Defender
- Robert MacQueen, Lord Braxfield — Lord Ordinary
- Robert Maclintock Jr. — Named in case documents
- John Brown — Named in case documents
- Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow — Named in case documents
- Betty Maclintock — Named in case documents
- The Merchant Banking Company of Glasgow — Named in case documents
- Dinwiddie, Crawford, and Company — Named in case documents
- Robert Sinclair — Named in case documents
- Peach and Henderson — Named in case documents
- John Easson — Named in case documents
- Captain William Gordon — Named in case documents
Where this case took place
In November 1774, Robert Maclintock Jr. freighted the brigantine Rainbow to carry goods to Virginia and return a cargo of wheat. His father and David Smith joined in the adventure, and the three wrote Virginia merchants Charles Duncan and John Brown, empowering them to draw on Maclintock jr. for the price. According to the defenders of this action, Smith and Maclintock Sr., in the summer of 1775, when the Rainbow returned to Clyde with the cargo of wheat, Maclintock jJr. informed his co-adventurers that the cargo was not for them, but solely for himself. Two years later he stopped paying his bills and left the country, and the defenders received a demand from Charles Duncan for the unpaid value of the Rainbow's cargo. Duncan, the pursuer of this action, argued that as co-adventurers the defenders were liable for the price of the cargo, and that the bill had been drawn solely on Maclintock jr.'s account out of secrecy: Maclintock Sr. was a principal in the Merchant Bank, and it was convenient for him that his name did not appear on the bill. Duncan further accused the defenders of obliterating evidence of a copartnership contained in documents possessed by Betty Maclintock, the aunt of Maclintock Jr. The defenders argued, on the other hand, that they were not co-partners with the younger Maclintock, and were therefore not liable for his debts. The bailies of Glasgow, who first heard the case, repelled the defense, and Lord Braxfield refused the defenders' bill of advocation. They then petitioned the Court to compel Lord Braxfield to pass the bill.